Sendraks wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote: So how do you propose to enforce this secured guns requirement and how do you plan on defining when a minor can gain access?

The simplest option would be, as I've set out in another thread, that only the licensed/registered owner of the weapons can access the weapons in that safe. Minors should not be licensed to use or own weapons period, so there should be no question of when a minor can gain access. They can't.

That has been my answer before but as I said in that post I have been told there would be no way of enforcing (without violating peoples rights) a storage/secured law. So I wanted to know what Byron's solution is.

The Australian way is that if you want a gun part of that is the agreement that the police will be popping round every now and then to make sure your gun is secured. Don't want the cops popping round? Don't ask for a gun then.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:
That has been my answer before but as I said in that post I have been told there would be no way of enforcing (without violating peoples rights) a storage/secured law. So I wanted to know what Byron's solution is.

I don't think there is a clear solution and the posts from Byron in this thread suggests that routine home inspections would probably be unworkable. I agree on this from a purely cost effectiveness point of view. I think the various aspects of the constitution in respect of home owners privacy (whilst whacky) are also a significant barrier.

However, Byron does suggest that....

quote="Byron";p="2310799"] In any case, there'd exist plenty situations where probable cause became available, such as reports from neighbors, teachers, or CPS inspectors.[/quote]

So we would have to rely on others to spot the guns not being stored or on kids talking about them. And then on the police not letting it fall through the cracks. I don't think it would be a effective way of stopping this kind of tragedy. I do think storage laws are a good idea but they would need stronger enforcement.

DarthHelmet86 wrote: I do think storage laws are a good idea but they would need stronger enforcement.

I agree that the ideal would be to have, as part of an individual's weapons license, a requirement that the police or other relevant authority, be able to come to a spot check on your weapons storage and management. That's the case in the UK.

I expect that such an arrangement would be seen as some sort of egregious infringement on liberty and freedom in the US though.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Thanks for the correction. 11 year olds can be pretty terrible but they're still little children. I too believe he had an idea of what firing a gun at a person could do and he did decide to point it at someone who had told him "no", which suggests vengeance as a motive, not thoughtlessly swinging around a gun Mum left out and, oops, went off and killed someone. Like you, I'm inclined to believe he didn't have a thorough understanding of the ramifications of doing so.

Even if this kid is an evil motherfucker who knew what he was doing and fully intended to murder the little girl, WHO THE FUCK LEAVES FIREARMS OUT AROUND KIDS? Maybe the kid is responsible for murder (I'm inclined to think not) but the parents must be responsible for something for being so catastrophically stupid.

I thought the kids who killed James Bulger were teenagers. Regardless, not much older than 11, I imagine.

They were both 11. (edit: Or 10?? My link says 11 http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jam ... 07264.html)

The reason why this kid got a gun is the fault of US society. All of their society shares the blame for allowing guns over there to be regarded as toys rather than lethal weapons designed to kill. Google "how many people die at weddings in the US" where people shoot bullets up into the air which come down, in one case, killing a toddler.

With such a blase attitude no wonder guns are viewed over there differently than the rest of the world views them. It's not enough to blame the parents. It's invasive in their society, it's almost a fucking religion over there so when a kid gets a gun after seeing everyone else shooting guns and being total fucking idiots with them, it's absolutely no wonder that this shit happens again and again and again with no change which is so fucking stupid it's beyond compare.

After Sandy Hook, Americans went out in droves to buy more guns with record sales. How fucking sick do you have to be to buy a gun as a protest for stopping the slaughter of innocent toddlers. They should make anyone buying a gun look through pics of their blood spattered bodies before they're allowed to buy it.

There's no arguments anymore - if Americans want their guns so badly, they have to share responsibility and blame when people die by guns.

Sendraks wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote: So how do you propose to enforce this secured guns requirement and how do you plan on defining when a minor can gain access?

The simplest option would be, as I've set out in another thread, that only the licensed/registered owner of the weapons can access the weapons in that safe. Minors should not be licensed to use or own weapons period, so there should be no question of when a minor can gain access. They can't.

It should also be possible to install technology such that only the registered owner of the gun can fire it. Sort of like how we have technology that prevents just anyone from getting into your car and driving away with it. But good luck getting legislation like that past the gun lobby.

Shrunk wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote: So how do you propose to enforce this secured guns requirement and how do you plan on defining when a minor can gain access?

The simplest option would be, as I've set out in another thread, that only the licensed/registered owner of the weapons can access the weapons in that safe. Minors should not be licensed to use or own weapons period, so there should be no question of when a minor can gain access. They can't.

It should also be possible to install technology such that only the registered owner of the gun can fire it. Sort of like how we have technology that prevents just anyone from getting into your car and driving away with it. But good luck getting legislation like that past the gun lobby.

I thought it already existed but was rejected by the NRA.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote: So how do you propose to enforce this secured guns requirement and how do you plan on defining when a minor can gain access?

The simplest option would be, as I've set out in another thread, that only the licensed/registered owner of the weapons can access the weapons in that safe. Minors should not be licensed to use or own weapons period, so there should be no question of when a minor can gain access. They can't.

It should also be possible to install technology such that only the registered owner of the gun can fire it. Sort of like how we have technology that prevents just anyone from getting into your car and driving away with it. But good luck getting legislation like that past the gun lobby.

I thought it already existed but was rejected by the NRA.

Perhaps. I should clarify: The problem is not in creating the technology so much as in legally mandating that it be installed in all guns.

The weapon used is described as a "single-shot 12 gauge shotgun." Is that what is shown in this picture from the article?

Shrunk wrote:The weapon used is described as a "single-shot 12 gauge shotgun." Is that what is shown in this picture from the article?

No that is an AR-15 or M4 by the look of things which is a semi automatic assault rifle or possible fully automatic.

Media hype again - instead sticking to the facts. "It was a 12 bore single shot shotgun? Right, let's use a more impressive weapon..."

Considering the strap on that gun in the image I would say that is the cops gun. I would assign stupidity to the article writer over malice. They had a shot of a gun at the scene and didn't know what the real gun would look like.

Byron wrote:Agreed, and the law should require that all guns be secured in situations where minors can gain access to them.

How exactly would this requirement be enforced?

Exactly how every other child welfare law's enforced: authorities investigate when a breach comes to light, and if necessary, get warrants to gather evidence, etc.

To answer another question raised upthread: I'd have no objection to a general requirement that weapons be kept secure, provided that it didn't stop a person from having an operable firearm within their immediate control for the purpose of self-defense. (This is, in any case, the constitutional minimum in U.S. jurisdiction.)

Byron wrote:Exactly how every other child welfare law's enforced: authorities investigate when a breach comes to light, and if necessary, get warrants to gather evidence, etc.

So, wait until someone gets shot then spring into action then?

Byron wrote:Exactly how every other child welfare law's enforced: authorities investigate when a breach comes to light, and if necessary, get warrants to gather evidence, etc.

To answer another question raised upthread: I'd have no objection to a general requirement that weapons be kept secure, provided that it didn't stop a person from having an operable firearm within their immediate control for the purpose of self-defense.

A long time ago BC (before children) I kept a loaded pistol in the nightstand next to my side of the bed. After my oldest was born, even though I had more to protect than my wife and myself, I locked the pistol away. Whatever the sense of security it just wasn't worth risk of one of my kids or one of their friends coming across it and one of them being hurt or killed. I could have rationalized keeping it where it was because it was a large revolver that took a strong trigger pull, but that's all it would have been, a rationalization.

The thing is, if you have a gun within reach, that is easy enough to get to quickly if you really need it, it's not that hard for a kid to get to it too. Something else to consider is how much your life would be changed if you lost your expensive stereo equipment compared to shooting someone that is unarmed and only there for some of your stuff.

(This is, in any case, the constitutional minimum in U.S. jurisdiction.)

That there is a constitutional right for private citizens to own a gun, even for personal protection, is not expressed anywhere in the constitution or the bill of rights. The 2nd amendment is ambiguous at best on this matter.

In the UK, I understand that upon gaining a license to own a gun you agree to random checks on the gun and storage of said boomstick. Signing an agreement for checks would surely get around the 4th amendment.

mattthomas wrote: Signing an agreement for checks would surely get around the 4th amendment.

Yes - but some folk would have issues with signing an agreement that gets around the 4th amendment.

Sendraks wrote:

mattthomas wrote: Signing an agreement for checks would surely get around the 4th amendment.

Yes - but some folk would have issues with signing an agreement that gets around the 4th amendment.

If they're not willing to let their guns be checked, no moar gunz!

mattthomas wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

mattthomas wrote: Signing an agreement for checks would surely get around the 4th amendment.

Yes - but some folk would have issues with signing an agreement that gets around the 4th amendment.

If they're not willing to let their guns be checked, no moar gunz!

That's why such a proposal would be opposed out the wazoo.
I think it's a good idea, just one that would face stiff opposition.